I meant what is it possible to spend money on?
The facts are known and nobody can touch the wreck.
What’s left?
I fail to see how Gillespie can spend a single cent on the so-called Maid of Harlech.
The identity of the aircraft, the circumstances of the crash and the name of the pilot are all known.
Cadw, the Welsh equivalent of English Heritage, have listed it as a scheduled ancient monument which, very loosely, means nobody can touch it and certainly can’t recover it.
Scheduled Ancient Monument might seem a strange classification but that’s what it comes under. There’s a crane in Bristol’s floating harbour with the same listing.
That seems to suggest that the Russians were being underhand but it was no such thing.
We had exactly the same problem in that after the war, Lend Lease equipment had to be paid for or destroyed.
I think I read the Dakota’s U/S all year but they’ve still got two (?) Griffon Spitfires I believe.
The statement appears to say they’re stopping flying completely. I wonder why, unless they need all engineering resources focused on the Merlins.
Cloud cuckoo land. What’s spent elsewhere is totally irrelevant and the government does not give simple repayment loans.
Given that the large airframes will almost certainly have to be scrapped, what I don’t understand is why Cornwall Aviation Heritage needs to pay for it.
There must be at a very rough guess 80 tons or so of scrap between the VC-10 and the 1-11. Surely the scrappers should be paying them?
What has this got to do with Cornwall Aviation Museum’s head in the sand attitude to what was known to be imminent?
I’ve got the book, or another similar one, mentioned by R6915 as well. I can’t remember the title as I haven’t read or even seen it in years.
The Giant Panjandrum was effectively a massive rocket-propelled Catherine wheel designed as I recall to clear invasion beaches of mines.
It was tested on the beach at, I think, Westward Ho! Not all the rockets fired and it ran amok, at one stage heading for the scientists.
The Navy had radar equipped TR.33 and TR.37 Mosquitos which carried torpedoes as well as some of the usual armament. I’m not sure they ever embarked on a carrier as a squadron.
There was also the TT.39 gargoyle but that’s best ignored – it was an eyesore.
I’ve read the GeoScientist article linked by the OP, it was posted on Pprune 10 days ago.
Bearing in mind it wasn’t written by an aviation expert, could it just be referring to a standard PR Mosquito?
The Flypast/KeyAero search function has been rubbish for years and every software update makes it worse.
After my first few failed attempts to find things years ago, I’ve always used google.
According to a post on WIX, a Faceache post says the inspection has been carried out and they’re awaiting paperwork.
On this side of the pond, I’m not sure it’s ever been relevant.
I understand the financial reasons for the plethora of two-seaters, but they look ‘orrible!
Especially now, as for obvious reasons, they use original style rear canopies rather then Nick Grace’s sleeker revision.
It seems to be of bolted-up construction with separate wheel centre and rim.
Was that common in the 50s or does that narrow it down a bit?
As radarsdesk said, “could also fit others”.
So definitely deck/hard runway type and not grass so it seems to me pretty certainly post-war jet, rather than WWII piston.
Lightning wasn’t a serious suggestion, more an indication of the sort of wheel and tyre.
A big wheel yes, but also extremely narrow I would have thought.
I have absolutely no idea of the Lightning’s tyre size but that sounds like that sort of ratio rather than an aircraft expected to use grass runways.